lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 30 Aug 2018 15:16:55 +1000
From:   Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
        Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@....fi>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
        Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] tty: Hold tty_ldisc_lock() during tty_reopen()

On Wed, 2018-08-29 at 13:34 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Cc-ing Benjamin on this.
> 
> On (08/29/18 03:23), Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 0000000000002260
> > IP: [..] n_tty_receive_buf_common+0x5f/0x86d
> > Workqueue: events_unbound flush_to_ldisc
> > Call Trace:
> >  [..] n_tty_receive_buf2
> >  [..] tty_ldisc_receive_buf
> >  [..] flush_to_ldisc
> >  [..] process_one_work
> >  [..] worker_thread
> >  [..] kthread
> >  [..] ret_from_fork
> 
> Seems that you are not the first one to hit this NULL deref.
> 
> > I think, tty_ldisc_reinit() should be called with ldisc_sem hold for
> > writing, which will protect any reader against line discipline changes.
> 
> Per https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/777220/
> 
> : Note that we noticed one path that called reinit without the ldisc lock
> : held for writing, we added that, but it didn't fix the problem.
> 
> And I guess that Ben meant the same reinit path which you patched:

This is too old for me to remember buit yes, there definitely was a bug
there...

> > @@ -1267,15 +1267,20 @@ static int tty_reopen(struct tty_struct *tty)
> >  	if (test_bit(TTY_EXCLUSIVE, &tty->flags) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> >  		return -EBUSY;
> >  
> > -	tty->count++;
> > +	retval = tty_ldisc_lock(tty, 5 * HZ);
> > +	if (retval)
> > +		return retval;
> >  
> > +	tty->count++;
> >  	if (tty->ldisc)
> > -		return 0;
> > +		goto out_unlock;
> >  
> >  	retval = tty_ldisc_reinit(tty, tty->termios.c_line);
> >  	if (retval)
> >  		tty->count--;
> >  
> > +out_unlock:
> > +	tty_ldisc_unlock(tty);
> >  	return retval;
> >  }
> 
> 	-ss

Powered by blists - more mailing lists